While we strive for a lively and vigorous debate of the issues, we do not tolerate name calling, foul language or other inappropriate behavior. Please see our discussion guidelines and terms of use for more information.

While we do our best to moderate comments, we do not screen comments before they are posted. If you see a comment that violates our guidelines, please use the "Report Abuse" link to notify us of the issue.

I believe he performed this apology as he was contemplating inviting the Dick Cheney over for turkey shooting. "He might shoot me just like one of those sorry losers we sent to fight those who hate us," It soon dawned upon GW that the Dick Cheney would always be cause for him to apologize.

Most soliders I've spoken to who supported their missions over there felt that the treatment of the average citizens in those countries was reason enough.

As much as I respect that, conservatives want to be the world police and tout financial "sustainability" and "responsibility" at the same time. With their tax and spending ideals, it just doesn't work that way.

Yeah we did them a big favor over in Iraq. For the most part, before the invasion life was pretty stable in that country for the average citizen and we brought them chaos, death, disruption and displacement. For good reason they did not great us as liberators as Bush LIED about. Looks like Bush can make his apology -- in hell.

Not, where do you think the intelligence came from that led the Democrats to support the initial invasion, not to mention the post-9/11 frenzy generated by the Bush administration and their lackeys in the media?

This is all on Bush. Ask yourself this. If war criminal Cheney didn't push this lame-assed project, would there have been an invasion of Iraq? Of course not.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

Quoted on CNN

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." — President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Quoted on CNN

Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." — Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

Transcript of remarks made at a Town Hall meeting in Columbus, Ohio — from USIA

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." — Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb 18, 1998

Transcript of remarks made at a Town Hall Meeting in Columbus, Ohio — From USIA

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." — Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D — MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998

Miriam Laugesen, an assistant professor of health policy at Columbia University, said there are two things many people might not understand (about the ACA).

First, she said, they might not realize how shoddy some older plans are, providing minimal coverage at relatively high prices.

Second, Laugesen said, many people might not realize that subsidies available under Obamacare will ultimately allow people to obtain more comprehensive coverage at a lower cost than they might be paying under their current plans.

"Obama was actually telling the truth," she said. "The law says you can grandfather in older policies. But that would only be if the plans met the conditions of the law and remained the same."

Shana Alex Lavarreda, director of health insurance studies at UCLA's Center for Health Policy Research, said Obama "underestimated the fact that there was a market for bad plans."

In other words, the shapers of the Affordable Care Act assumed that people would jump at the chance to receive better coverage at a better price.

They didn't factor in the idea that some people, because of either ignorance or stubbornness, would remain loyal to their old plans, regardless of how much they could improve things under Obamacare.

Bush never said anything about Iraq that wasn't first said by Bill Clinton, so be sure to call him a liar too. Also The leftie nimrods fail to acknowledge that a democratic congress overwhelming voted to go to war.

"Bush did not unilaterally go to war. He had a lot of democrats helping him."

Helping him? No. Enabling him Yes. They gave the guy the authority to go to war. They didn't order him to do it. They didn't commit troops to Iraq. Its like if you give somebody a gun, how responsible are you if he then goes on a shooting spree and kills ten people?

"No. Helping means you're actively engaged in some project. Enabling just means you got out of the way of the people that wanted the project so they can be actively engaged in it."**********Hmm...c;lose but no cigar. Helping is doing something for someone else that they are unable to do themselves. Enabling is doing things for someone else that they can and should be doing for themselves. The President is unable to engage in military action without the aid of Congress. Thus, Congress "helped" with our involvement in Iraq. Congress also "enabled" our involvement to continue for a lengthy period of time with their authorization of funds.

Dave, all valid points. I assert that the right to bear arms supercedes the right to glom onto the government for personal failure. However, with preventive care we might be able to disarm some of our future killers.There is no reason not to tell Americans they are fat and undulgent.

The ironic part is instead of not having the right to forceably take from others, you are not allowed NOT to. I don't like forced car insurance, I don't like forced health insurance. Is forced life insurance next? I mean, the odds of suffering from life-insurance-inducing illness (AKA death) is far more likely than suffering from something requiring the need for the former two.

With it is as it is now, you are required to spend money on something you may not only need, but now are far more likely to not be able to afford. The kind of premiums popping up are tough even for those are financially comfortable.

So what do you do? Pay a tax (read: fine) for nothing, or accept subsidized health plans? And since the deductibles are so high and many not able to afford them along with the plans, the taxpayers are effectively paying for nothing.

If people were paid decently there would be issue over the takers. The real takers, however, are those companies that underpay their employee to enrich themselves. Bear in mind a lot of people who have found themselves in these straits are Republicans.

Snot, I'm sure you have no expectation for Trek to be uncompetitive. On the other hand this points to an overall need to create policies which discourage and not encourage this kind of practice which turns out to be industry wide.

There is something curious and ultimately ill-advised about Mr. V. Wayne Skattum’s musings regarding the proposal of universal healthcare in our country. And its curiosity is most clearly seen in the editor’s characterization of Skattum’s position: “Healthcare is a basic right”.

Actually, a careful reading of his letter indicates that Skattum wisely does not make that claim. Rather, his apt surmise is that “…in most...countries… healthcare is considered a fundamental human right.”

When Americans think of rights, we, naturally enough, think of Constitutional rights, or of unalienable rights: something cast in stone by a legislative body.

But the attempt to link universal healthcare in our country with a putative legal right is, I think, a significant mistake.

I sometimes think (albeeit rather imaginatively) of a certain Jean-Jacques Rousseau, sitting in his living room, opening the day’s mail. He’s perplexed by the content of one of the letters; he reads that he’s a party to something called “a social contract”.

So he calls to his wife, “Honey, did you sign some sort of a contract? I mean: did somebody come to the door and ask you to sign….”

And when his wife replies, No!” he thinks, “Gee. That’s funny. I don’t recall signing any contract either.”

Claiming (or intimating) that every American’s access to healthcare is a "right" will be met by a TEA Party rejoinder, “Really? And where is recorded a statement of that right? Certainly not in our Constitution or in any state constitution!”

Claims as to “rights” in this area are counter-productive. So, I would offer a “friendly amendment” to Skattum’s missive:

Decent Americans have an unwritten moral duty to provide adequate medical and dental healthcare – including adequate preventative care – to all of our citizens.

That should suffice to make voters’ choices clear. To get the right people in office so as to implement that moral imperative. To restore moral decency to our land.

So now moral right is a liberal edict? You discard belief in God as right wing and then claim the moral higher ground? Would Jesus not want to heal those who suffer? Would Jesus not save all of us? Claiming the throne of morality by declaring mans' weakness and providing excuses is not belief. We can easily provide preventive care at little cost through our public institutions. No partisanship needed. No act of the lord necessary.Provide a free physical per citizen each year as a reward for voting. Help those that need help, not divisionary partisanship.

Your rhetorical question is apt. But do not assume that it has an obvious answer in today’s political clime.

In a recent give-and-take between Republican candidates for their party’s presidential nomination, your question was put to Ron Paul. In effect: “Should someone without health insurance who has a treatable, terminal illness simply be allowed to die?”

Paul didn’t provide a “yes” or “no” response, but he said something to the effect that, well, if such a person has choosen not to buy health insurance, well….” And the remainder of his answer was lost somewhere in empty space. Where there is no sound.

Much to the approval of an adoring and proud Republican audience.

Until then I had never experienced anything quite like that. In America, our “exceptional country”. From someone who once had a medical practice!

Letter-writer Skattum is certainly correct when he writes of those who “…[value] money over life and ideological purity over suffering.”

But, oddly, he later refers disparagingly to “…both the ‘loopy left’ and the ‘rabid right’."

I would dearly love to have him elaborate on the loopiness of the left. As nearly as I can tell, the healthcare praxis that he endorses coincides perfectly with today’s progressive goals.

Cling like a vine to your partisan beliefs. Yet both of us understand that pure partisanship is not enough to make a damn bit of difference. Yourallegiance to the public funded Progressive movement is part of your professorship. I will give your cause some credit. You hosed the public in your favor plenty of times. Dogma and reality. The Progressives enemy.

The U.S. Constitutions does not anywhere obligate citizens to pay for others. For example, the Bill of Rights limits what government may do, and recognizes citizens' rights to do certain things (speech, religion) without government interference.

The rights recognized in the constitution do not require that your fellow citizens do anything for you- just not interfere with your activities. This is very different from a "right" to healthcare (or food, or housing, or anything else), because if you have these "rights" then others must must be forced to buy them for you.

I must thank Al Small for his invaluable civics lesson. Just now, I feel that I have a much more robust understanding of Americans’ rights. And of our ancillary moral duties, if any.

I have learned, for example, that I am not my brother’s keeper. Whew! Important news for me. I’m off the hook!

Silly me. I once thought that, in addition to my civil rights under the Constitution, I had ancillary moral duties. But no! I now find out that I do not.

Free at last. Free at last. Thank God Almighty I’m free at last!

Whew! That’s gospel to me! The Good News of Ayn Rand. That I can keep my hard-earned money. Well, okay, even if I never really worked very hard for my Gelt.

What a weight has been lifted from my shoulders! Now, when expert-swimmer-I walk along a beach and hear cries for help from someone 50 feet out, I need not get my clothes wet! Dear Sir and Madam -- nothing in the Constitution so obligates me to do that. [Although – Drat! – there are un-American “Good Samaritan” laws in some states that carry criminal penalties for failure to help others in certain dire circumstances. “An infringement of my God-given Constitutional rights,” I say!]

I hereby adopt the U.S. Constitution as my Holy Book. What a Godsend! I now understand that it grants me nothing but rights, its now-repealed 18th amendment notwithstanding. And, more importantly, it absolves me of any so-called moral obligations. Oh, glorious day!

Okay, so maybe local, state, and federal governments have the legal right to collect taxes. But what assurance do I have that those monies will not be used to assist others?

I'm an economist and I can safely say that no academic "economist" would ever use the term "rent seeking" to describe the behavior you've outlined.

What you are describing is what "rent seeking" has somehow become in the broader vernacular, but it is not at all correct.

The Econ Library has a fairly unbiased explanation of how the term has been misused over the years:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentSeeking.html

It also bears mention that Joseph Stiglitz, among others, considers true rent seeking by wealthy Americans and large corporations to be one of the key explanations for the vast level of income inequality in America.

The "rent seekers" are very often the large multinational corporations, not someone who is trying to eek out a monthly allotment from Medicare.

Yeah, rents aren't payments from the government. They're basically monies obtained in excess of the true free market value of the services provided. Rent seeking is basically the process of subverting the free market in order to collect rents. The government is often involved in that process but their role is usually in enacting anti-competitive laws and regulation on behalf of the rent-seekers.

Regarding the letter about on line predatory lending. Predatory lending of course is nothing new. Jesus condemned it in the Gospels. Jesus chased the money changers fro the house of worship of the day -- them temple. It's condemned in other books of the Bible, too. The Bible clearly forbids usury.

For many years most states had usury rates of either 12 or 18 percent annually. Then came the credit crunch of around 1980 and the banks involved in credit cards at the time -- mostly local community banks and regional players like First Wisconsin and M&I -- suddenly were demanding higher usury rates. The Wisconsin legislature passed a bill changing Wisconsin's rate from 12 percent to 18 percent and Governor Dreyfus signed it into law.

However, in the 1990s, state legislature after state legislature foolishly repealed the usury laws. However, the free marketplace failed to self regulate. No surprise there. Before the ink was dry on some legislation, the payday loan businesses started setting up shop and running TV ads. A while later the auto title loan stores moved in as well.

More and more we are now realizing President Reagan was wrong at his first inauguration when he said, "Government is not the solution, government is the problem" Keep electing Republicans and Tea Party candidates, and we will see things improve.

People would borrow money at a high interest rate to buy a TV or furniture or something. So this was outlawed.

But rent-to-own made an end run around the law.

And so did every slum store that offered credit under the usury limit- but their prices were double or more to pay for the credit. And what's government to do- set acceptable maximum prices for everything?

And now we have title loans, and Payday.

The point is, there's only so much government can do to keep people away from what they want. Yes, regulation can (to some extent) minimize the damage. But telling people that what they are doing is stupid, or trying to outlaw it, has never worked.

As for these loans, they are unsecured loans made to people with questionable finances. And as always, you won't get anyone to make risky loans unless they are rewarded with adequate returns to justify taking the risk.

Could somebody define "predatory lending"? I mean are we just talking about high interest loans here because for most of the people getting them its either a high interest loan or nothing. They're simply lousy credit risks. Or are they predatory because they charge higher than market rates to less educated consumers? Companies do that all the time and nobody calls them 'predatory' for it.

I disagree on the christmas article. The lead-up is what gives it all of its oomph and presence. Usually around or just after thanksgiving, people really focus on "getting ready" for christmas. It gets decidedly colder, the possibility of snow becomes more real, and people have accepted that it's winter.

People start putting up lights and decorations, the cities and towns put up their own as well. Everyone starts planning and gift-buying. It's the atmosphere, the anticipation, the energy that makes it such a lively time of year. Religious or not is irrelevent, people can enjoy it just the same in their own way and for their own reasons.

Christmas itself is one day. And then it's all over. Everyone goes back to work and school, the decorations come down, people cut back on their spending and settle in for the coldest and snowiest part of winter. There's a different mood in the air.

I love winter, but the lead-up to christmas is something else altogether.

Christmas does not end on December 25...little Christmas is celebrated traditionally on January 6...there are twelve days of Christmas...I hate that the stations that played Christmas music from october on stop at midnight Christmas night...it's just wrong.

Health Care never needed to be a right - if you need a doctor you saw a doctor - just like your car, you need it repaired, you see a mechanic.

What changed was the Doctors, and their insurance companies. They chose to privatize healthcare and eliminate county hospitals as health care of last resort. That allowed them to charge fee's without competitive restriction, and they do. It would be great to have Medical professionals backing the ACA, but they don't. They are all free riding on their gravy train under the radar and letting the 'insurance' companies take the rap.

US healthcare is the example of true capitalism, where the winners get to kill off the losers.

The proliferation of health care costs in the US, causing healthcare to be unaffordable here, has many causes: the rise of HMO's causing greater utilization, the establishment of Medicare which also increased demand among the population with the most health issues, the consolidation of physicians into large medical groups and decline of the solo practitioner, the rise of health insurance coverage resulting in the need for expensive billing and collection departments in every provider office, the increase in expensive technology (CT, MRI, MRA, perfusion studies, high tech surgical equipment like Da Vinci,) the increase development and use of prescription drugs (for which the US patient is subsidizing for the rest of the world since we have no national health care system that can bargain for price concessions,) the US medical malpractice environment... the list goes on...health care systems, insurance companies, drug companies, medical equipment device manufacturers, individual physicians, patients, malpractice attorneys and juries... are all part of the problem.

krshorewood - Today at 8:11 AM:"Progressives believe in right to life on both sides of the uterine wall."************Quick Schmitz hide your loon card because it would be revoked if your fellow lefties learned of your pro-life beliefs.

Hah ... so get this. Adriana, the Obamacare girl from the home page of the website is not a US citizen. She is actually from Latin America, and qualifies for healthcare -- paid for by the rest of us, of course -- under the new law.

She was strategically placed on the website as a signal to millions of Democratic voters from under the border to sign up for their free healthcare.

Many scoffers suggested the model was an illegal alien, but though she is not an American citizen, the woman is currently a permanent resident and is applying for citizenship. Her husband is a U.S. citizen and the couple live in Maryland with their 21-month-old son.http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/obamacare-model-health-care-website-felt-bullied-critics-article-1.1515206#ixzz2kYDREO8O

The rights protected in the Constitution are negative rights. These are rights people are born with and don't impose any sort of duty or obligation on another person. Not taking away your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness does not require me to do anything or cost me anything.

Rights that require others to provide goods and services, possibly against their will, are considered positive rights. Healthcare would be considered a positive right. If you cannot provide your own healthcare, others must be forced to provide it for you, infringing upon their liberty. The founding fathers did not support positive rights.

Not to be nit-picky, but this is just something that is a personal pet peeve...the phrase, "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" is NOT in the US Constitution. It's from the Declaration of Independence.